Talk:2014 Formula One World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Deletion

If you plan to delete this page, then you might as well delete the 2013 F1 page as well, because these two pages have the same purpose.

If the 2014 page gets deleted, it will be the only one that gets deleted. We have actual information available about the 2013 season; we have nothing about 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting stuff that's important?

Firstly, the bit about Renault deciding about their engines in 2012 is deleted, which is from f1 fanatic, a resource that Wikipedia use all the time. Secondly, Bernie Ecclestone is in talks with Thailand about having a grand prix there, which the Thai government believe they'll get the rights to have a race, which it would fit, as there are only 18 races contracted for 2014. PCH17 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talks have never been notably. Wikipedia is not a news site. We don't report soft news. Ever. WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news magazine, it reports what is confirmed. --Falcadore (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, It does say in the 2013 F1 season article, quote "between twenty and twenty-five races would be possible if the teams agreed to it". I don't see why the teams wouldn't agree to it, as all (or at least most) 2012 and 2013 races will stay, but I do agree with Falcadore. The Thai GP has been speculated, not confirmed. TollHRT52 19:11, 10 August 2012 (AEST)

I would also add that F1 Fanatic is not a reliable source, it's just one man's blog. Reference from Autosport, the BBC, F1.com, or other mainstream news sites - if they don't carry the story it's almost certainly nothing more than common gossip and that has no place here. QueenCake (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Renault might decide who they will supply engines to in September, but until they actually do decide, it's hardly notable and highly speculative. It is conceivable that they will supply the same teams in 2014 as they do now, in which case, nothing changes - so how could that reasonably be included under "team changes"?

2) Thailand might be in talks with Bernie Ecclestone, but we only have their word for it. Until someone is named and quoted on the subject, it remains speculative. Yes, the 2013 season page has a "proposed races" section - but each of the races listed there is supported by a quote from a person considered to be knowledgeable about the subject (usually Bernie Ecclestone).

3a) Someone posted a link to an F1 Fanatic forum thread claiming that "Hyundai have registered their interest in entering F1 in 2014". I can tell you right now that that thread is by no means an expression of interest by Hyundai in competing in Formula 1 because I'm the one who wrote that thread, and I have no connection to Hyundai whatsoever - I'm an Australian high school teacher.

3b) Forum threads fail WP:RELIABLE. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This article is sourced enough to stand. Plus it would just be recreated. --Daytona 500 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it survived a nomination for deletion on 5 April 2012 --DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was nominated for deletion in the first place. The person who posted the nomination for speedy deletion did so because it was "created by a banned or blocked user", but the user who created it has not been banned or blocked. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was collateral damage from the speedy deletion of 2015 Formula One season. Both articles (and several others) were nominated for deletion in this AfD back in 2010. When the editor nominated 2015 Formula One season for speedy deletion due to "having been deleted before", they also tagged this one. I'm not sure whether the rationale of "created by a banned or blocked user" was intentional or accidental. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thai Grand Prix

Until there is a source for this, please don't put this down. I'll therefore remove it, because Bernie hasn't said yes, we're definately going to Thailand in 2014. Pch172 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a source provided. There always has been a source provided. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well when I went on there too delete it, there was no source provided. Pch172 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was the one who edited that section of the article into the article in the first place, and I made sure there was a reference supplied. As near as I can tell, that section of the article has not been edited since it was first added. So there is no way that it did not have a source provided.

You are far too quick to delete content simply because it doesn't have a reference attached. If you see something that you think is questionable, check either Autosport or F1 Fanatic. They're usually pretty quick to post things as they happen. If there is an article that supports what is written in the article, but hasn't actually been supplied as a reference, don't delete the passage entirely from the article. Edit the reference in. A lot of IP editors and people with new accounts are unaware of the need to supply references, so you should assume good faith in what they are doing.

And please, put a little mroe thought into what you are doing before you actually do it. I know you have the best intentions at heart, but you are causing more disruptions than you are solving. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the latest round of reports released today are not confirmation that the Thai race will absolutely happen. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese GP

I did put this under a new section in the races category, which is confirmed for 2013, but not for 2014. Until they decide the limit of races at the end of this current season, it should, in my view, be kept, as encyclopedia content Pch172 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese Grand Prix contract expired at the end of 2012. It was included on the 2013 calendar. Do you have any evidence that it does not have a contract for 2014? Because if you can't say for sure with a reference, you can't include it. It doesn't matter what your opinion is - only what the the established facts are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well why isn't it present with the other grand prixs then? Pch172 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we have no evidence that there is a contract for 2014, and no evidence that there is no contract for 2014. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive

I've fixed the archiving code for this one (and for 2013) - just a note for future ref - when copying the code from a working page, the counter needs to be reset to 1, and the index file must be created with the special hidden comment.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Drivers and Teams Table

I've noticed recently that the sentence with all the drivers in is getting clustered. Isn't it time to go back to table format, or are we going to leave it until it gets too messy? Pch172 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We're going to leave it like that until a new Concorde Agreement is announced. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Break it up into more sentences. --Falcadore (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuel Limit

I have a question to the point: In order to promote fuel efficiency, cars will be required to carry no more than 100 kg (220 lb) of fuel at the start of the race, 30% less than in 2013. Does anyone know a diffrent source than the linked one? Because in the official FIA technical Regulations for 2014 from december 11. 2012 they only mentioned the fuelmassflowlimit of 100kg/h but no limit for the fuelmass they carry at the racestart. If i'm just to stupid to find it, please tell me the number of the rule. http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulation/file/2014-F1-TECHNICAL-REGULATIONS-111212.pdf But i'm think someone missunderstood the role and instead of kg/h he made it up to kg/race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C20:3200:CD4A:BB0B:739C:73E7 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

McLaren and Vodafone

I noticed that somebody made an edit the other day about Vodafone and McLaren going their separate ways. Someone else kindly removed it, and I've since put in a hidden note explaining why it should not be included, but I also thought I should use this space to give a fuller explanation as to why.

Technically, yes: the original edit is accurate in that it is a team change. McLaren are known as "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes" in 2013, and will certainly be known as something else in 2014. However, by long-standing consensus, sponsorship changes aren't notable enough to go in season articles. The reason for this is that the change doesn't affect the season as a whole, and nor does it have the capacity to affect the team's performance the way a change in engine supplier would. It only affects the name on the side of the car (and possibly the livery colours), and so the McLaren page is the best place for it to go. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese GP

There is no mention in this article of the Japanese Grand Prix leaving or continuing to hold a race in Formula One Pch172 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. We have no evidence that it will continue, and no evidence that it will stop, and until such time as it is confirmed one way or the other, we are in no position to include any content on it, because we have no sources to support anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

TBA engines in constructors name

We need to do something about this, as the TBA just looks horrific. It's ok in the engine column, but something needs to be done. I propose that we remove the TBA for the time being, but keep the reference in the engine column Pch172 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What would you propose as an alternative? Those teams have no engine deals in place for 2014. We can't simply leave them as, say, "Marussia" and have no connection to their engine, since that implies that they are building their own engine - like Ferrari, or Mercedes - which they are not.

You might think that it's unsightly, but edits should not be made on the basis of the cosmetic effect on the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sauber engine

Any source for Sauber using Ferrari engines 2014? I couldn't find any, and if there isn't a confirmation of the engine yet, we should change it to TBA. Anti-lag (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull-Infiniti??

In 2014, Red Bull are planning to rebrand their Renault engines under the Infiniti brand name (http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-bull-to-rebrand-renault-engines-infiniti/). If this goes ahead, would the Entry List item for Red Bull need changing accordingly (to Red Bull-Infiniti for example), or would it remain Red Bull-Renault as the engines will still be built by Renault?

MTracey1 02:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We should not speculate. We should wait until it is announced. --Falcadore (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

MTracey1 is asking what we should do if and when this is announced. Not suggesting that the article should be updated ahead of time.

Personally, I think the best way forward wold be to keep the link to Renault in Formula One. After all, it is an engine built by Renault and simply rebranded as Infiniti. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm saying we should not speculate to an outcome. It will be announced at some point through the FIA whether it will be Red Bull-Renault or Red Bull-Infiniti. In think it should stay Red Bull-Renault up until the point that it is officially announced that it is Red Bull-Infiniti.

We don't speculate what to do, we wait for it to be announced, then we can change it to whatever Red Bull Racing/FIA says it is. --Falcadore (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Of course we change it to whatever Red Bull and the FIA say it is. The question is how we represent that in the article. If Red Bull's engines are rebadged as "Infiniti", will we create a separate page for Ininiti engines? Or do we simply pipe it back to Renault in Formula One if the only thing that changes is the name on the engine?

You call it speculating on what to do, but I call it discussing how best to proceed. This could be a contentious issue, so why not work out how best to proceed in advance? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree. This has been discussed previously when Infiniti was first connected with Red Bull. Status quo is maintained until confirmed otherwise. Seems very simple to me and I'm not sure why we need to revisit. --Falcadore (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there are editors who weren't aware of the original discussion and feel it is an issue that warrants discussion. And because once obtained, consensus is not necessarily fixed; a new consensus can be achieved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well you're certainly aware of it and you're the one pressing the point. --Falcadore (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of it now. I missed the original discussion. If I took part in it, I've since forgotten about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If they are going to change it to Infiniti shouldn't we create a separate article for it as Playlife and Acer engines had their own articles and results tables? That is if they are going to change the name. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.8.119 (talk)

Why don't we wait until they do? They might not. --Falcadore (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait and see how this turns out too. And if the Renault engines are rebranded as Infiniti we should handle this the same way as has happened in similar cases in the past. After all, engine rebranding has happened numerous of times in Formula One. As mentioned before two of them are Playlife and Acer. In addition to these we had TAG, Megatron, Ilmor, Subaru, Mugen, Petronas, Mecachrome, Supertec, Arrows and Asiatech. I may have forgotten one or two. Some of these were even rebadged Renault engines (Mecachrome, Playlife and Supertec). So, I think we have enough examples on how to deal with this situation. Now we just have to wait and see what happens.Tvx1 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Grand Prix

The reference given for the return of the Austrian Grand Prix makes it pretty clear that the race needs the approval of the FIA before it can go ahead. Please do not add it to the page until such time as it gets this approval. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that is what I have taken from the Red Bull announcement - for reference I didn't add Austria I merely failed to remove it as I suspected that confirmation might be imminent. I *did* remove Japan as I cannot find confirmation of a contract for 2014 anywhere (BroSwerve (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

There was mention from Bernie when Martin Brundle interviewed him on the grid at Hungary where they were discussing the contract extension of the Hungaroring saying it's a classic circuit and Bernie said something along the lines of; these are the best tracks, just like Austria. It wasn't those exact words but that kind of confirms the GP in Austria next season, no? Troggy3112 ^(Talk2Me) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, as far as I am concerned. Circuits sign contracts with FOM to hold Grands Prix. The FIA has to approve the physical circuit, but does not have to approve the race. The World Motor Sport Council does have to approve the calendar submitted by FOM, but this does not have any bearing on the existence of contracts for a Grand Prix to be held. As Bernie Ecclestone is FOM, and he says he has a contract for a race, then there is a contract for the race and the calender simply needs to be published by the FIA to reflect this. As the FIA has no published any sort of 2014 calendar, it is erroneous to claim that there is no approval. As of this moment, the FIA has not approved a single event or a calendar as a whole for 2014.

Yet, our article currently states "Grands Prix contracted for 2014," with a long list of races that have not been approved by the FIA. These are contracts with FOM for races to be held in 2014. FOM has a contract with Red Bull Ring. Race circuits do not sign contracts with the FIA. So why do we need FIA approval to add a contracted event to a chart dedicated to contracted events? The³5₉ (Talk) 09:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The359 I think that's a reasonable stance, given that the FIA effectively rubber-stamps those races that a commercial agreement has been reached for, barring exceptional circumstances such as when there are safety concerns. However, in that case we need a minimum level of official confirmation and I would say that needs to be from FOM (i.e. Ecclestone) directly. I know he has alluded to it in speech but I can't immediately find a published public quotation from Bernie/FOM saying the deal is signed, only Red Bull themselves (a third party). However, if anyone else can find that available at a reputable source I'd agree with adding Austria (and any others in future) to the table on that basis (BroSwerve (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

Red Bull is not going to make a press release stating they have a deal if there is no deal, especially one with an attached date. Red Bull is one half of the deal, so I'm not sure how they are a third party source. I've never seen any official press releases from FOM specifically, almost all sources come from Bernie or the circuit owners. New Jersey certainly announced their deal themselves, not FOM. The³5₉ (Talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My original concern was that there was a contradictory reference out there, with Ecclestone saying that the revived race was "news to him". 203.38.105.161 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that you don't seem to get official FOM documents about race agreements as Bernie is pretty autocratic in how he goes about things, but I still think in that case we need a published quote from him in a reputable source (BBC, Autosport, Sky Sports, etc) saying 'I have agreed a deal and this race will happen' - that might be under the headline 'the race promoters say the race is on' and simply a quote from Bernie merely confirming that, as in this BBC example for New Jersey (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20003521). I say this because obviously on occasion he and race promoters come into conflict and promoters may be making positive noises publically that the race is dead set to happen to keep sponsors on side, where in reality negotiations are far from completed. BroSwerve (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indian Grand Prix and sources

The "F1fanatic" link and URL does not work and brings up a page crashed page. this therefore make the link broken and not reliable. The BBC source which it has been replaced with has been accurately reported and is not just "horribly written" just because it disagree with a source which cannot be accessed and changes the actual outcome and therefore requires more tact in reporting of the situation of the Indian Grand Prix as as yet i cannot find a reliable source which confirms the "skipping" or "discontinuing" of the race in the 2014 season. The sources so far say there a discussion regarding moving the calendar around and political negotiations regarding Indian Taxation. Sport and politics (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have also noticed this, the formatting of the link is broken, thus why I changed it earlier (I am not familiar with the old code-style format it was placed into or how to do it, but as there is now a simple function for inserting references and I had all the necessary information I fail to see why it needed to be changed back). In any case, there are now other (major media) articles we could use of unquestionable voracity. An example would be The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/10213007/Indian-GP-dropped-from-F1-calendar-for-2014.html I won't go ahead and change it lest it be reverted but if we agree that could be adopted? Major newspaper of record; quote from Bernie directly; quote from the organisers; and contextual information about the date change. BroSwerve (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the link is broken, then it can be fixed. In the meantime, F1 Fanatic is a highly reliable source, even if it is a blog. Didn't it occur to you to inspect the test of the site before judging its worth? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, that rewrite was, quite simply, worthless. It was poorly-written, unclear, non-committal and based on an outdated and somewhat speculative article that was given as a source. Whoever wrote it needs to start paying serious attention to their prose-writing skills, because what was edited into the article was horrible. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As BroSwerve has said why is this source be obsessed over and being demanded that it be used, when more reliable sources as opposed to a blog are avaliable? Issue also has to be taken with the idiotic and juvenile comment from Prisonermonkeys concerning to the re-write. The re-write was accurate and removed any form of POV. Just because the content of the reliable source is opposed gives no reason for the editors to be personally attacked, to further the use of a Self-published Personal Webpage and Blog. This renders the comment and personal attack meaningless. This is also colouring the objectivity and understanding of wikipolicy on reliable sources by some users. The re-write is not "poorly-written" that is opinionated tosh and personalisation, with no genuine reasoning provided. The source explicitly states the future of the 2014 race is unclear and the source is deliberately non-committal, please use reliable sources not questionable self-published sources no matter how "highly regarded" users hold this and other self published personal websites and blogs. Sport and politics (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it was poorly-written. The entire thing was clunky and never adequately summarised the contents if the source. It was full of weasel words, like "there have been discussions", as if you didn't want to commit to saying one thing in case someone's mind was changed at a later date, and in terms of grammar, it was extremely poor. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Michelin

Crash.net are reporting that Michelin are going to announce next week that they are going to offer out tyre contracts to the teams for 2014-2015. http://www.crash.net/f1/news/194032/1/reports_link_michelin_to_f1_tyre_contract_bid.html <--- link Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

....And what exactly are you wanting us to do about it? The³5₉ (Talk) 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be done. Crash.net is not exactly a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How is it a unreliable source? Its just as reliable as Autosport or Planet F1. Daniels Renault Sport (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an unrealiable source, because, as you said, they reported that Michelin was going to announce plans to offer tyre contracts for 2014 and 2015 within a week. It's been a week, and there has been no annoucement. So how can it be considered reliable when it is so obviously wrong? 203.38.105.161 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of a personal website and blog as the primary source for part of this article

The self published source F1 fanatic should be avoided where ever possible and should not be used as a single primary source for this or any part of any article. Reliable sources should be used as primary sources only with more questionable and dubious sources as secondary or back up sources as part of multiple sourcing of questionable or controversial claims. This article is therefore failing quite spectacularly on having reliable sources for some of its claims and this needs to be addressed. Sport and politics (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You evidently haven't actually read the site. You've just seen that it's a blog and decided that it's obviously a bad source. F1F has been used as a reliable source for years. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good for the blog, it is still a blog, Wikipolicy frowns upon using blogs and personal websites. There are more reliable sources and just because it is liked is meaningless. Sport and politics (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE clearly says that you can disregard policy if it is for the betterment of the article.

Ignore is a lazy argument to avoid looking for other sources which are in line with wikipolicy as this blog is simply liked, reliable sources are not trumped by liked sources, use a wide range of sources not just a single liked blog because it is seen as the easy option. Sport and politics (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I also feel it is pertinent to mention st this juncture that you behaviour is remarkably similar to that display by a problematic serial sockpuppeteer that has caused all manner of troubles in the past. Making a fuss over minor details on how tcontent is presented, an over-reliance on adhering to Wikipedia policy, quick replies on article talk pages and duplicating discussions (this discussion us directly related to the one above it) are all parts of said problem editor's behaviour. You have just displayed all four in a matter of minutes, do please be very careful as to how you proceed, lest you arouse suspicion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who or what you are talking about, in relation to sockpuppeterring. No this is not a direct duplication this is a wider discussion on the use of a blog. The above is about a specific issue regarding the inclusion of the Indian Grand Prix. this is a wider discussion regarding the use of blogs on this and now as you are pointing out on wider F1 articles. This discussion has got very personal very very very quickly. Sport and politics (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You should also note that the 2012 season pages uses F1F as a reference quite extensively, and has been awarded Good Article status. One if the prerequisites of this is that all sources used be reliable and verifiable. That page never would have been given GA status if there was a problem with the source.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Again good for the 2012 article it shows the sources on that article need changing/adding to/updating to be more reliable and in-line with wikipolicy. GA status does not go through line by line each source it looks at different things, such as neutral POV and prose style. GA is a fop to obfuscate the issue that F1fanatic is a blog and should be avoided from being used as a single primary source as per Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. I am not saying don't use it I am saying don't use it on its own, especially when there are other sources which are reliable and in line with wikipolicy. Sport and politics (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are the one demanding a consensus on the issue. The burden if responsibility rests with you to obtain that consensus before you make edits to the page. Please do not edit the article until you have a favourable consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been accused of being hung up on little parts of this article, I am not sure the phrase pot kettle black has been heard of but reverting Reuters as a source to F1Fanatic seems to be taking the approach I am being accused of. I am not really sure how Reuters can be claimed to be less reliable than F1Fantic. If you want the F1Fanatic source to be used, have it as a second or even third source but don't though remove highly respected and very reliable reputable news agency sources, just because, it seems over the top and heavy handed. Sport and politics (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys, no one is asking for, or demanding, consensus. This is a policy issue and F1Fanatic is quite frankly nothing more than a fan site. It's simply not a reputable source. Whether or not someone is a sockpuppet does not negate the validity of their point. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with F1F. It might be a self-published source, but ten minutes on the site us all you need to demonstrate how reliable it is. For all intents and purposes, it us a news site like Autosport or the BBC - it simply employs less people. It has been used for years without a problem until now, and as far as I can tell, the only problem here is that someone found a different source that said something completely different, and which has since been demonstrated as being outdated. If F1F us a bad source, then arguably the BBC US a bad source because Andrew Benson US a notoriously poor journalist. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that all it really does is repeat what other news websites already say. How this makes it a reliable source is beyond me. News sites get direct press releases and talk to the people involved. I don't see this from F1 Fanatic. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The359 has put it well F1 Fanatic is like an RSS feed just on a bigger scale, taking stories from other places and republishing them and allowing comment on those stories. How does that make it a reliable source? Also is Reuters an unreliable source? as that was used as a source but was hastily removed and F1 Fanatic put in its place. Sport and politics (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If that us the case, why does F1F often post news stories hours before the sites it is supposedly repeating? When the Ferrari F138 was launched this year, F1F published the official photos released by Ferrari hours before any other site. F1 Fanatic is mire than just a blog now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Because press releases are usually embargoed, and major news networks are not going to break that embargo, lest they no longer receive the press releases. The³5₉ (Talk) 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys if F1 Fanatic is to be considered "mire than just a blog" [sic] what editorial controls and reliable double sourcing of information does it have in place to ensure that it is presenting accurate and legally compliant articles? Sport and politics (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sport and politics, please tell me what kind of editorial controls and reliable double-sourcing of information the BBC has to check for accuracy, considering that the article you presented as a reliable source was two days out if date and apparently based on a Tweet from Craig Scarborough, another self-published source. Because if it does have those controls, then that article never should have been published. Somehow, it was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is avoiding answering the question can you please tell me the editorial standard and reliable double sourcing that F1 Fanatic has in place the BBC standards are set out on their website and an example is provided here. Also avoiding answering the question regarding F1 Fanatic is leading me to believe that it does not have those controls in place. Can you please also tell me how Reuters as a source in not reliable as that was added by me as a source and then reverted to to F1 Fanatic. I honestly think that Reuters reliability is not in any way in question. Sport and politics (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not avoiding answering the question. You demand that every source provided has adequate editorial controls, but then your original edit offered a source where those controls had completely failed. You can't have it both ways. 203.38.105.161 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

PS - I'm posting from a public terminal, which is why my signature shows a bare IP addres. 203.38.105.161 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One bad source does not mean we can supplant it with another bad source. The BBC source specifically has no bearing on whether or not F1Fanatic is a reliable source, which is the point of the discussion. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All I see in regards to answering the question over the procedures F1 Fanatic has in place to ensure it is has reliable editorial controls and reliable double-sourcing of information is avoidance of the question, diversion tactics and obfuscation. This leads me to the conclusion that reliable editorial controls and reliable double-sourcing of information are non-existent and the F1 Fanatic fails as a reliable source. Sport and politics (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And all I have seen from you is a rigid adherence to WP:RS and WP:SPS. You have seen that F1F is a blog, and have immediately written it off as unrealiable without even bothering to consider its content. I still find it odd that when you first put forward the BBC article as a preferable source, you claimed that the link to the F1F article was broken and the article inaccessible, when a quick check established that it was actually an error in the reference template coding that prevent the reference from showing properly. The article itself was still accessible from the article, but you clearly never even bothered to check it. If you did, it was only once you were prompted to do so.

You evidently want the article to be full of realiable sources, and that's fine. The problem is that you are only ever picking and choosing which sources you think are reliable without considering their individual merits. If F1F cannot be treated as a reliable source, then we have to go over every individual source and consider them each, because there are serious flaws that can be found with them. As pointed out, the BBC article you used was outdated and unreliable. But also consider Autosport, whose Autosport International Show is sponsored by Lotus Cars - ever since that agreement was established, the site has run a disproportionately high number of stories about Lotus F1, and often make headline news out of things that other sources barely even bother to mention. One could easily make the case that the sponsorship arrangement between Autosport and Lotus has resulted in greater coverage of the team from the publication, and thus compromises their reliability. Consider also Joe Saward, a journalist with a blog of his own who can usually be seen in the Formula 1 paddock, who in infamous for his attacks on Vijay Mallya and Force India after Mallya dropped Tonio Liuzzi - whom Saward openly supported - a few years ago. Again, he's compromised.

Please go back and look at F1F properly. Show me examples of when the site has contradicted other sources, misrepresented facts, or published incorrect articles. This is a site run by a professional journalist, and yet you refuse to accept it simply because he owns the site. If F1F was owned by Haymarket Publications - like Autosport - you would likely have no issue with it. If you are going to question a site's reliability, then you need to consider the individual merits of that site. You can't just claim it is guilty until proven innocent. Particularly when it has been used as a reference for years without problems, and you try to subsititute in a dodgy article as an alternative reference. 203.38.105.161 (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the main issue here is what constitutes a 'reliable' source: as you have stated - correctly in my opinion - the reliability of any source is open to question and interpretation due to any number of inaccuracies or complex biases. Given this, it seems unlikely that we are going to reach a situation where everyone agrees that one particular set of sources are perfect and another set are useless. Consequently, we have to take a more pragmatic approach and remember the purpose of the article. The point of having sources at all is to support statements that we are making in the article, such that lay readers can follow up the story and be reassured that the statement is an accurate one. Regardless of the individual brilliance or otherwise of specialist sites/blogs in reporting F1 issues, the fact remains that the majority of readers of Wikipedia articles will be more likely to accept as reliable a statement citing a major media outlet as a source than a specialist website or blog where both state the same thing. This isn't to say that anyone is wrong to cite a well-edited blog or specialist site, or that such an article shouldn't be used as a reference where it adds something verifiable that the mainstream media equivalent doesn't which is of benefit. However, I do think that it means that mainstream articles should be permitted to stay unamended where the specialised equivalent "does" nothing different. BroSwerve (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But if you go back to the original issue, the mainstream article was clearly wrong. It claimed that the Indian Grand Prix was still on the calendar, pending the outcome if discussions between the race organisers and the sport's managemnt. The specialised source, on the other hand, had reported that two days previously and that the discussions had already taken place with the result being that the race was removed from the calendar. Furthermore, that specialised source was also supported by other specialised sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, being right does not make it reliable. I have looked through the site and I see nothing that makes it any better than any other blog out there. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article is not what is at issue here, that is an obfuscatory diversionary tactic to avoid the issues surrounding F1F. The issue here is; Does F1F have the necessary standards in place to qualify as a reliable source? (note reliability not accuracy) So far there has been no evidence of the standards (if any) that F1F has in place here and if the standards are in place they have not been provided in this discussion. The arguments mainly put forward for retaining F1F have obfuscated away from addressing the points of concern raised regarding F1F. The359 points out F1F is no more reliable than other blog, with out the standards in place and being right is not a reliability standard. Also BroSwerve is right this has become a very navel gazing discussion and the wider readership need to be considered here. The lay reader will find a mainstream source more reliable than a blog unless that blog can be shown to be reliable on its own, in this case F1F has not been show to be independently reliable. Sport and politics (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Red Bull and Ricciardo

I'm sorry if this is not the right place to discuss this, but it says in the article, that Ricciardo is already on the Red Bull roster, which is not yet 100% sure. It is most likely that he'll go there, but it hasn't been confirmed.

Also, the link in the reference list is broken. KreiviMerioksa (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This usually happens when rumours gather momentum - people add details in prematurely. The usual rule in the past has been that any report of a driverobe needs to have a source that names and quotes someone who is involved in the move (in thus case, Ricciardo, Horner, etc.). Until then, just revert any changes that aren't supported or which aren't suported by an appropriate reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Didn't want to change it without asking first. KreiviMerioksa (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is no reference given, or if you think the reference completely fails to substantiate the content it is bring used to support (for example, it it refers to rumours and speculation), then don't hesitate to revert it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jenson Button

Today Jenson stated in an interview that he does not really have a contract for next year with McLaren - only an option, which he hadn't signed yet - unlike a lot of previous articles say. In this case should that McLaren position be marked as TBA? - Hunocsi (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Korea and Europe

Hello, I come from the wiki in Spanish, and the tentative schedule is not Korea and Europe, for now these are not, should take away, since by the time they are 20. --190.142.4.147 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There re no references to support their removal. No schedule has been published. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This link is displayed Valencia and This link is displayed in Korea and India. 190.142.3.61 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of either of those sites, and cannot find anything to substantiate them in the mainstream English-language media. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sergey Sirotkin

At present there has been no official confirmation by Sauber that he has signed for next year. The Russian source provided seems to say that the team principal has confirmed it but provides no direct quote nor a link to one. It is also suggested that the driver himself has stated that he has signed 'a contract' with the team for next year, but this could just as easily be a development or test role. Combined with the fact that it is being reported in no major source and certainly not by Sauber themselves, I suggest that we hold fire until we have a >direct< quote from the team in a reliable source with actual details before jumping the gun. It is my understanding that the article exists to outline confirmed, verifiable information, not to try to beat major media outlets to the draw and pre-empt announcements. BroSwerve (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Despite today's confirmation of the contract by multiple Russian reliable sources, I agree with point that his role in Sauber still not discovered. So, I removed it. Cybervoron (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. You may end up being correct as he certainly seems to be being discussed a lot what with all of the new investment in the team but lots of things get speculated and then reported on by publications wanting to break the big move at this time of year before there is real formal confirmation so I think it's best to wait until it's totally clear. BroSwerve (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed him again tonight because the article provided in support gives no more info than the earlier one and appears to be based on one report in an Austrian newspaper with no direct quote from the team principal or anyone other than the driver himself, who simply says he will be a 'Sauber driver in F1' in 2014. That could still be a test/development contract. I'm entirely aware the talk is that he will drive, but until we have a direct quote somewhere reputable from someone in the team saying that it looks speculative to keep adding him. BroSwerve (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that for now we can't add Sirotkin to the "Signed drivers" table. After all, he's still missing Superlicence, so for now he simply can't be announced as an F1 race driver. However, the story about Sauber signing Sirotkin has already captured attention, so it seems that it should be mentioned in the article anyway, like Luiz Razia's unsuccessful attempt to join Marussia squad this year. Maybe the following will be appropriate?

• In July 2013 Sergey Sirotkin joined Sauber as a development driver. A development programme was announced to be set up for Sirotkin in order to prepare him as a Formula One driver and to help him qualify for the FIA Super Licence. After the training Sirotkin is expected to join Sauber as a racing driver in 2014. ( http://www.sauberf1team.com/en/season/news/detail-view/-/bekanntgabe-der-partnerschaft-zwischen-dem-investment-corporation-international-fonds-dem-staatlich-1/ )

Ximaera (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Expected yes. But he could fail to meet that expectation. Add when confirmed, not before. --Falcadore (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. We wait until his signing as a driver is confirmed by the team, and not a moment before. Any inclusion before then implies that he will race - no matter how it is worded - as that particular section of the article is and always has been for confirmed driver movements. The creation of a new section for expected or anticipated driver movements is entirely speculative.

After all, Wikipedia is not news. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've included Sirotkin in the article on the back of an Autosport referece that makes it pretty clear the seat is his. He simply has to qualify for a superlicence first, and the team is going to whatever lengths necessary to make sure that happens. If Autosport - particularly Straw and Noble, who are both pretty good journalists - are reporting that, then it's good enough for inclusion in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Autosport reference states there are a load of conditions attached before he can race such as securing a Super license and minimum mileage in 2011 car. That is a conditional offer not a confirmed drive for 2014. Once the conditions have been fulfilled then please happily add him until then it is the same as adding USF1 when they were mooted as being in F1 or the Port Imperial race in 2013. They may have been planned but the conditions they had to meet were not fulfilled. Until these conditions are fulfilled i don't think it is right to add him as the article could give a false impression that he will be racing next year when there is a reasonable possibility he won't. Sport and politics (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We included other details in the article when there was a reasonable possibility that they would not come to pass. Like, for instance, the Austrian Grand Prix. Its inclusion on the calendar had not been confirmed at the time, but the source provided was considered reliable enough to justify its inclusion. Likewise, the Korean, Mexican and Russian Grands Prix are all subject to confirmation. Do you want to remove them, too?

The same logic applies here. The references given make it clear that Sirotkin will race in 2014. Although he needs a superlicence first, the article also makes it clear that Sauber have planned out a full program for him that will get him a superlicence (and you evevidently have not read the conditions for a superlicence because it really is not very difficult to get one). Therefore, the only thing that can prevent Sirotkin from getting the seat is force majeure. Which means we cannot include any drivers in the table, since force majeure could also prevent them from racing.

You say that we cannot include Sirotkin in the article because conditions have not been fulfilled and the inclusion would create a false impression. However, the inverse is also correct. Leaving him out assumes that he cannot fulfil those conditions, and thyse creates a false impression. Consequently, we can only include information in the article that we can demonstrate to be true. And on Wikipedia, "truth" is what you can prove. We have a reliable source that says Sirotkin will make his debut next year, and that the team have created a program for him to ensure that happens. That is proof enough. If, tomorrow, that changes and Sirotkin cannot meet the requirements, then the article will be updated accordingly. But not until it happens. We have a reference that says it will happen, an assumption that it will not, and a precedent in previous editing practices that make the inclusion justifiable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to lean Prisonermonkey's way here and say that Sirotkin has a contract, and crystal balling his success or failure is irrelevant. All of the contracted drivers on the chart now could (heaven forbid) die tomorrow and never drive. Hence the chart is for drivers who are signed to a race seat, which Sirotkin qualifies for. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's something you reminded me of the other day - while an article should be written with the future in mind, editors should not lose sight of the present. Even (and maybe even especially) if they have good reason to believe that the article will change tomorrow. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Should it not wait until he receives a superlicence? There is precedence: Akihiko Nakaya was once signed to Larrousse but he failed to received a superlicence so did not go ahead. Should not be considered a fait accompli. --Falcadore (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you. But the sources given make it pretty clear that Sauber have planned out a full programme for Sirotkin to follow that will end with him getting a superlicence. It's not like Sirotkin has to earn one on his own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remove Sirotkin from the wiki page. He has not been fully confirmed yet.--86.28.99.104 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the above discussion and the sources given in the article - Sirotkin has the seat, provided he can earn a superlicence. Sauber have developed a program so that he can get one. That is confirmation enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The super licence is issued by the FIA, not Sauber. The fact that Sauber have planned out a "full programme" does not imply that the FIA will issue a super licence. Until he qualifies for a super licence, he should not be listed as a race driver. 23funnel23 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, if he wasen't granted a superlicense then obviously him granting a f1 seat wont be true.--86.28.99.104 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the team is free to give a seat to whoever they like. A superlicence is not a prerequisite for joining a team. A driver only needs a superlicence to exit pit lane during a Grand Prix weekend. The references given make it pretty clear that Sauber is treating Sirotkin as one if their 2014 drivers, even if he does not have a superlicence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but if by some miracle of good sense Sirotkin isn't granted a superlicence, he'll be replaced on the spot. I'm waiting for Caterham to sign a twelve-year-old girl. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

People said exactly the same think about Kimi Raikkonen when he joined Sauber.

Anyway, the point here is that the team is behaving as if Sirotkin will race for them next year, and we can demonstrate that with the references given. If anything about that situation changes, then the article will be updated accordingly. But we can't remove Sirotkin from the article simply because we disagree with the choice or because he doesn't have a superlicence yet. We can only remove him when the situation changes, and a valid reference is given. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to shed some clarity on this matter. The present list of teams and drivers is a list of SIGNED teams and drivers, not a list of 100% absolutely certain teams and drivers. Any team or driver who has a signed contract to race in the upcoming season has the right to be mentioned in the list. As Sirotkin has as signed contract, having certain conditions or not, he has a rightful place in the list. If you want only those who are 100% certain, you might as well remove all the teams and all the drivers since they haven't agreed to a new Concorde agreement and will no be able to compete if they don't. Tvx1 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

2014 F1 Calendar

So they have just released the calendar and honestly I reckon there could be some changes in it Matt294069 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussions you have good reason to believe that the calendar will change and have evidence to support making those changes inthe article, then we're all ears. But if you just want to talk about the calendar in general, I suggest you go to the Autosport forums or F1 Fanatic.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think he may be pointing out that this is a preliminary calendar, and not an FIA approved calendar. This is literally Bernie sending out emails to the teams telling them what he plans for next year, the whole thing still needs to be voted on by the Motorsport Council. Hence it could indeed change. The³5₉ (Talk) 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If the calendar was not issued by the FIA then it should not be included at all. --Falcadore (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

That does indeed seem likely given how much to-ing and fro-ing we've seen with races being agreed and dropped just in the last couple of months. To that end I think it would have been quite prudent to keep the reference to the New Jersey situation on there in the 'Changes' section until we have a final, confirmed calendar at the end of the year saying it will not happen. Stranger things have happened than races finding funding to get them back on track and even if that doesn't eventually occur, it's still noteworthy to state that a major project to get an F1 race to happen there is in place and had been approved, with those having invested in it thus far presumably still attempting to resurrect it. Recall that until yesterday we had no realistic intonation that there would be a Mexican GP next year but that is now on the article, although the actual likelihood of that occurring has been widely questioned. Until the calendar is finalised, I think it's worth including a reference to every race which has at some point been announced by Bernie as having a firm contract for 2014 on the changes section. BroSwerve (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe about New Jersey, since Bernie has suggested that there could be a 22nd race next year, but not Spain. Barcelona and Valencia were planning to alternate like Hockenheim and the Nurburgring, but it never happened. It's not a change, so it shouldn't be mentioned. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Bernie has denied there being any calendar. It boggles me that people can not wait until official calendar is released. Calendar should be remvoed pending confirmation. Wikipedia is not a news site we don not have to carry a calendar yet. --Falcadore (talk)

I agree with Falcadore here. Bernie has indeed denied the calendar in an interview with Sky Sports. He has furthermore confirmed that the Grand Prix of America still has a contract. I think it would be best to revert the article to the previous situation with the list of contracted races. The Spanish Grand Prix host circuit has been made increasingly uncertain and maybe it would be best to display that as TBA for the moment. We should not display a calendar at least before the WMSC convenes about it an releases an official (albeit provisional) calendar in a couple of weeks time. Tvx1 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have seen plenty of instances in the past where Bernie has said one thing and done another. Especially when he is trying to get an event to work on his terms, like New Jersey. Even if he denied the existence of this calendar, we still have it from a reliable source, and so we can infer that it is legitimate as they would not have published it otherwise. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The article that is used as a source for this calendar does not provide any reliable source for it and the person who is in charge of making up the calendar has questioned the authenticity of the calendar. I think we have to say in this case we cannot be sure whether the calendar that is provided by Autosport is legitimate. I might be, but we're no certain enough of that to publish it here. Furthermore we have no official statement of the organizers involved in organizing the Grand of America that it won't take place, of those involved in organizing the Mexican Grand Prix that they even have a contract and of those organizing the Spanish Grand Prix that it will certainly take place at the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya. The current calendar is nothing but speculation and is therefore in contradiction with Wikipedia's policies. It is best to revert to the previous situation with the list of contracted races. Tvx1 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We have seen plenty of instances in the past where Bernie has said one thing and done another - that seems to me to be the perfect definition of unreliable source. As in past years the temptation to compose a calendar until the FIA publish one. We don't have to put one up, we are not a news source. Put it at Wikinews. --Falcadore (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I have to agree with Falcadore here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site. Tvx1 (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bernie is the archetypal unreliable source. He often spins a lie or two to certain interviewers simply because he likes winding them up. He perpetually plays games when talking about race contracts, circuit developments, new teams, people running out of cash, everything – his whole modus operandi is playing one person off against another, that's what he does. Let's stick to the FIA sources, and we can easily wait till they confirm things. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how this draft calendar is speculation. The references given make it clear that this calendar was shown to team principals for feedback. If it was some kind of hoax, the principals would have spotted it immediately. They wouldn't accept a draft calendar for review from anyone who was not in a position to hand them that draft calendar.

To address Txv1's argument, we have never needed an independent statement from race organisers to verify a calendar being legitimate - only to verify the inclusion of that race before a calendar is published. You want the calendar to confirm the race and the race to confirm the calendar.

Hey, don't change my words to make them suit your argument. I was just pointing out that the current calendar is being used to confirm the Mexican Grand Prix, the Barcelona race and no American Grand Prix even though none of the organizers involved has made a statement on that matter. What I want and what is actually this project's policy is for the organizers to confirm the race, not the calendar and not for a race to confirm the calendar either.

Furthermore your argument that it has been distributed to the teams for feedback proves that this calendar has no meaning. For all we know, they might all have rejected it. Do we have any statement from any team regarding this draft calendar? It is very clear that this calendar has no official status whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. On this page we display races who have a firm contract for the upcoming season, no speculation calendars.

Lastly, please sign your posts.Tvx1 (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, it's speculation because it is not an official FIA release. --Falcadore (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with that! Tvx1 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Txv1, I suggest you read the practices you cite a little more carefully. In the past, we have only sought confirmation of a race joining the calendar from the event organisers when a calendar has not been published. When the calendar is published, that is considered confirmation enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now this is what we have trying to point out to you! No calendar has been published, not even a provisional one. All we have so far is an e-mail, which has been denied by the person who has allegedly sent it. It has no official status whatsoever. Furthermore, most opinions in this discussion so far are clearly in favor of removing it. So its safe to say that if any consensus can be established here, it is to remove the calendar from the page in favor of the list of contracted races until an official one (provisional or not) is published. Tvx1 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ironically enough, that draft calendar was published just hours before you posted that. I'm editing from a mobile, so I can't share the link, but it's on Autosport as we speak. :::::::::::: Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to this [1]; we have to disappoint you but it doesn't have any more official status than the previous one. It's clearly made by autosport based on all the information they have regarding the contracted races. I suggest we show here on the page what we are certain of at the moment and put the calendar on it when it's officially released on friday. Tvx1 (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A publication is either reliable as a source, or not reliable. You cannot pick and choose which articles from that source are reliable and which are not, especially when your argument is that we cannot be sure of the sources used by the publication. While it is true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was genuine, it is equally true that we cannot demonstrate that the calendar given to Autosport was not genuine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And that is the definition of why it is unreliable and should not be used here! You now admitted yourself that it's unreliable. So surely you have to agree with everybody else here! Tvx1 (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have known that you would only read half of that comment.

You can't prove that the source used by Autosport is reliable. At the same time, you can't prove that the source used is unreliable. So to question the reliability of the sources they themselves use is to question the reliability of the entire publication.

Given that Autosport has been used for years as a reference, we can reasonably assume that anything they publish is published in good faith. So if they say the calendar they published was a draft calendar being sent to the teams, then we can assume that it is because they are a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have now adressed the planned races section. I sincerely hope we can keep this lay-out without to much discussion until an official calendar is released in a couple of days. I think it's the most accurate representation of the current facts that are known. I have added some further explanation to the current American, Mexican and Spanish Grands Prix situations. I have left the Spanish Grand Prix venue as TBA on the list as there are currently conflicting reports concerning the host of the 2014 Spanish Grand Prix and we can't be certain which one it's going to be a the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And I have undone that edit, because you are using one rule for one piece of information, and another rule for another piece of information.

On Wikipedia, the truth is what you can prove. You cannot selectively add or remove information from an article on the basis that you are unsure of it, particularly when it comes from a reliable source. You certainly cannot use contradictory reports from unreliable sources to justify removing reliably sourced content.

It comes down to this: we have a draft calendar that was published by a very reliable source. Where that source got it from is not our concern, because we have no way to substantiate it, just as we have no way of substantiating anything that any source publishes. This is why we use reliable sources - because they can verify information that we cannot.

Please do not revert any content on the page until you can provide a source that clearly states that the draft calendar was bad. If you're going to make a change on that scale, which removes reliably sourced content, then you need a reliable source that has been published since that calendar was released that clearly demonstrates that the original was wrong.

After all, you are the one demanding that content is added or removed on the basis of sources. It's time to practice what you preach. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! I should have known that my hope was in vain. I really can't see what your problem is with having a list of contracted races whose presence is individually justified by reliable sources instead of calendar based on a preliminary draft for one. Why can't you just wait 3 or 4 days until the official (albeit provisional) calendar is released. And why if you are so adamant on using the draft here, then why do you maintain on using the original one and not the recent update?

What more do you want to prove that a preliminary draft is wrong than an interview with the man that has allegedly sent it in which he denies having done so?

Why do you claim that my edit is unsourced while I actually reinstated and added about 25 different sources? I even left your source for the calendar in the article in a more appropriate manner !

Exactly what contradictory reports from which unreliable sources did I use?

And finally, why do you keep ignoring the fact that everybody keeps disagreeing with you ? Tvx1 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with individual references for individual races. What I have a problem with is the way you are trying to pretend that the draft calendar does not exist because we can't prove that the source used by the author was legitimate - but you're not demanding the same thing if other sources, and expecting us to somehow verify the sources ourselves.

Secondly, as has been pointed out to you before, Bernie Ecclestone has a documented history of saying one thing and doing another. Don't you remember the Donington Park episode, when he said that Silverstone would never host the British Grand Prix again and awarded the race to Donington, and then did a backflip and signed a seventeen-year deal with Silverstone? In retrospect, the entire thing was done to soften Silverstone up. So Bernie might control the calendar, but he's proven to be unreliable in the past.

Now, answer me this: if you are demanding that we seek further verification of the Autosport source because you believe that what is presented at face value is misleading, why aren't you demanding that we seek further verification of Bernie's comments, given that (as I have just demonstrated) we have good reason to believe that what is presented at face value is as equally misleading as you believe the Autosport calendar to be? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So if you have no problem with the individual references for the races, then why did you revert me reinstating them. After all the only difference with your calendar and the edit I made is the presence of the dates and the venue for the Spanish Grand Prix. I can't really see what your obsession is with dates already being there. They don't have much meaning at the moment. The only thing that really matters now are which races are on it.

If you question Bernie's reliability, then why do you only disregard the interview denying the draft and not the draft he has allegedly sent?

I'm not claiming that the draft doesn't exist, I and all the others in this discussion are trying to explain to you that it is insufficient to use as a source for a calendar. I didn't remove that source in my edit though. I used it in a more appropriate manner. The current draft is nothing but speculation as is proven by the fact a recent update has been made by autosport, which is apparently not even good enough for you as you have refused to incorporate it in to the article so far.

Finally you have refused to answer over half the questions I have posed to you in my last post, so here goes again:

Why do you claim that my edit is unsourced while I actually reinstated and added about 25 different sources? I even left your source for the calendar in the article in a more appropriate manner!

Exactly what contradictory reports from which unreliable sources did I use?

And finally, why do you keep ignoring the fact that everybody keeps disagreeing with you?Tvx1 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's sad that we weren't able to reach a resolution in this discussion before the calendar was released earlier today. Still I think its no time to shelf this matter yet. After all, the exact same situation will probably arise next year. So I think is in everybody's interest that we reach a consensus and forge that in to a guideline for the project on when to start posting a calendar on an upcoming season's page. More precisely is a draft for a calendar enough to do so? My opinion is it is not and we should wait until the official instances release the official (provisional) calendar.

Do not think we need an additional guideline beyond WP:NOTNEWS. We are not ever in a rush to publish. Accuracy is more important than speed. --Falcadore (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that one should expect that WP:NOTNEWS is enough of a guideline. But clearly, for some members, it is not enough. So therefore I think it is useful to forge a more specific guideline concerning this matter on this project's page. Otherwise we risk getting the same discussion each year again. Tvx1 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be less if a problem for you if you stopped behaving as if you had some kind of editorial authority over the article. After all, you never gave a satisfactory explanation as to how we were supposed to verify the original source used, why we didn't have to verify any subsequent sources that were used, or how a supposed authority on the subject could be trusted when he has a documented of being unreliable. And yet, despite all of this, you have repeatedly demanded that everyone involved observe your preferred edits for no other reason than because that's the way you wanted it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Spainish situation

Then I have another remark regarding the 2014 calendar. What's with the venue for the 2014 Spanish Grand Prix? The World Motorsport Council did not list any venues on the calendar they released.[2] The autosport reference does and lists the venue for the Spanish Grand Prix as the circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya but gives no explanation as to why?[3],[4] Does anyone have any more reliable sources on this matter? Tvx1 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

An explanation is not needed. The WMSC calendar does not contain any venues, so the lack of a venue for the Spanish Grand Prix on that calendar does not matter. The calendar published by Autosport, a reliable source states that the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya will be the venue. What more do you need? Your inclusion of the passage on the event-sharing arrangement between Barcelona and Valencia insintuates that the deal still exists, but you have no evidence to support that. There is, however, evidence - which you supplied - showing that the race will be in Barcelona.

We don't need to describe the situation in the text of the article. The section is called "calendar changes", which by its very nature states that what happened in 2013 will be different in 2014. Barcelona hosted the race in 2013, and Barcelona will host the race in 2014. How that came about does not matter, because nothing has changed. Yes, there was a proposal to alternate between Barcelona and Valencia, but it has not been taken up. Why is it so important that we cover that? Especially considering that it is a section for changes and we are clearly stating that no change happened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why does it not matter what FIA puts on its calendar approved at the hearing of the WMSC? The autosport reference provides no explanation as to why it list venues, let alone as to why they list the venue for the Spanish Grand Prix as Barcelona. There are no further publications on that matter by that source either. Yes, we might not have proof that the deal is 100% certain on, but we don't have proof that it's 100% certain not going to happen. Right now we have equally reliable sources disagreeing. That is why I asked here wether anyone could find anymore equally reliable sources to further clarify the situation. Until we have sources clearly proving either of the possibilities we have to act in accordance with WP:Verifiability. More precisely, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. What you are doing is valuing Autosport over any other source, even the official instances in charge of making up the calendar.

This why the passage dealing with the Spanish Grand Prix should remain in place for the time being. It has been widely reported in the media and is widely mentioned in the wikipedia articles regarding that Grand Prix and the tracks involved. That's why it deserves a mention on this page on the basis of WP:Notability. Furthermore it IS a change as the original plan for 2014 is for the Valencia Street Circuit to host the Spanish Grand Prix and if that does not happen that would be a change. Tvx1 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of thinking that something is notable simply because it happened. It's all well and good to preach notability, but you should also consider relative importance as well. A plan to alternate the Spanish Grand Prix between venues is notable, but if that plan never eventuates, then is it really that important? In the context of the full season, it won't make any difference if the race was planned for one venue, but held at another. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this again as it was removed with no further explanation and no consensus for removal. The only official document released publicly so far by the FIA doesn't state a venue so it remains unclear. I also think we have to take a less inflexible approach to what is considered noteworthy - I anticipate that the formal calendar will be released soon and will state the venue as Barcelona, at which point (if not already removed) somebody will rapidly whip out this section again. However, given that it was widely reported across a range of good sources that advanced talks happened to try and establish a race-sharing agreement and that this information is all over the wider project (articles on the 2013 season, the Spanish Grand Prix itself, etc) it is a little perverse to then not have any mention whatsoever of what happened to that arrangement for people accessing the article on the 2014 season and expecting at least some explanation of why that never went ahead. It may not technically be a change from this season in that this year's race was held at Barcelona, but it is certainly a deviation from what was widely reported and expected to happen, even if, as is very likely, that does not actually transpire. For a good example of this look at the article on the 2010 season - it was planned for the British GP to move away from Silverstone to Donnington Park, but despite an agreement being signed this never happened. Technically there was no change between the 2009 and 2010 seasons as in both cases the event was held at Silverstone, but it was a noteworthy piece of information about a prospective or actual calendar change as is the (presumably failed) attempt to establish a race-sharing deal in Spain BroSwerve (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one major difference between the Silverstone-Donington case and this one: Silverstone and Donington both got major upgrades and reconfigurations as part of their deals. Here, it's just a case of Valencia and Barcelona wanting to share the race. The arrangement between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring is a much more apt comparison. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There is actually an even better comparison to the Spanish Grand Prix. The Japanese Grand Prix was scheduled to alternate between the Suzuka International Racing Course and the Fuji Speedway starting in 2009, with Suzuka hosting in 2009 and Fuji in 2010 and so on. Toyota, the owners of Fuji Speedway, later withdrew due to financial reasons. Even though the rotation never happened it is still mentioned on the 2010 Formula One season's page and on the Japanese Grand Prix's page. I can't see why we shouldn't treat the Spanish situation in exactly the same way. Tvx1 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you're prioritising notability over relevance and context. The plan to share the race between Barcelona and Valencia is notable. Its failure (particularly if the reports of the state of the Valencia circuit are to be believed) is notable. But in the context of the season as a whole, it is not important. It will not affect the running of the race or of the season in any way, shape or form. To include it is bordering on trivia. It would be the same as if we listed details of the Barcelona circuit changing its name under the calendar changes section.

If there are details of a similar planned-but-never-happened change in another season article, they should be removed. Although given that the Fuji circuit was owned by Toyota and that it's removal from the calendar coincided with Toyota's departure from the grid, and that both events were due to finances, its inclusion on the page is not without merit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If we take that approach I think we risk becoming a little introspective and focussing too much on semantics. The Donnington/Silverstone situation was admittedly different in that no race-sharing was proposed but ultimately was a change of venue which was agreed, announced and then never occurred, thus made no impact on the running of that season. The change didn't occur after the WMSC had finalised the 2010 calendar, so it didn't pose any logistical issues with reorganisation, but it remains notable because it was widely and reliably reported. With Japan and Spain, fundamentally what we have are two instances of a similar event occurring: announcements being made of agreements reached for a race-sharing agreement which then never occurred. To say that one is more relevant because the circuit which pulled out happened to be owned by the parent company of a departing team is arbitrary; you could equally argue that Valencia's demise is symptomatic of the lack of oversight in Formula One's unaccountable system of awarding and organising races and setting often-exorbitant fees which leads to unsustainable events (the problem currently befalling the Korean or previously Chinese races), or even that Fernando Alonso's failure to win the title since 2006 means that Spain is going off F1 and that two events there are not sustainable (if you wanted to ignore the huge financial crisis in the intervening period). They may be right or wrong, but neither are relevant to whether it is noteworthy.

Either we have that section there purely to state literally what has changed between the confirmed calendar released by the WMSC one year and the confirmed calendar released the next (plus any mid-season cancellations a la Bahrain 2011), or we use it - as now - to report any deviations from what had already been announced, confirmed and/or reliably reported as happening by Bernie/the circuits directly. It's a valid issue to raise - and I think the problem lies partly with the disconnect between FOM and FIA: Bernie publicly speculates/coaxes along commercial deals for races, which are then agreed fairly secretively but normally announced soon after; unfortunately, a confirmed commercial deal, which we take as gospel, doesn't mean circumstances won't change by the time the WMSC convenes. Consequently nobody knows 100% whether a race (or race-sharing deal) is in or out until the final calendar is released, even if we have laboured under the illusion (often for a year or more) that it is confirmed because the organisers/FOM have said so publicly. The alternative, though, is to distrust all such announcements until the WMSC releases the final calendar and ignore the normally-binding deals which have been done. It's my opinion that, for better or worse, that is the reality of how F1 is currently run, and so where race agreements were widely and reliably reported and accepted as happening but then never do, that is a change from what was expected and thus worthy of inclusion as part of the context of that year's Formula One season. BroSwerve (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think the smartest way forward is to update the article to reflect any changes that are planned or pending, and then decide on the context once the final calendar is released. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bahrain GP night race

Isn't the Bahrain Grand Prix going to be a night race next year as its been reported by Autosport and even confirmed by the race organizers. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been reported that they want to do it, but they have not confirmed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's now been confirmed look at the Sky Sports F1 website. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Then include it. You know how to. You don't need a consensus for every edit you make - just a reliable source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The truth behind Kvyat"

Autosport are currently running a story on the reasons behind Kvyat joining Toro Rosso. It can be found here:

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/5653/the-truth-behind-kvyat-str-drive/

However, it's part of the premium content, and I don't have access to it. I'm hoping someone might have access and be able to see if there is anything worth including. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

I notice there is an ongoing edit war. I encourage User:FootballCleaner to take up its issues here and conduct no further reverting until the topic has been discussed. This is already well over the 3R line. --Falcadore talk) 19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• PURE editwar: engine development suspended July 2012 [5] - no engine available, so no sane person would assume engine development could restart now after 15 months of dead company and finish in time for 2014 season - Lotus cannot use not existing engine
• Sirotkin editwar: why you insist 18 years is teenager?

FootballCleaner (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm... very basic. Teenager means 13-19. Years in which the number is pronounced with 'teen'. By definition eighteen is teenage. --Falcadore (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) PURE – so what? Why does that mean the information should be removed? Anyone could restart development of the engine, it doesn't have to be Pollock.

Sirotkin – the clue is in the word "eighteen". Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

editwarrior claimed PURE engine could used by Lotus for 2014 - no intelligent person would think is possible after 15 months of dead project and all employees fired FootballCleaner (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that says PURE were unable to find the funds needed to restart development? Do you have a reference that says PURE had to let go of all of their employees? Do you have a reference that says Lotus will use an engine other than PURE?

On Wikipedia, the truth is what you can prove through the use of reliable third-party sources. I actually agree that it is unlikely that PURE will ever finish their engine, but that is my opinion. I don't have anything to substantiate it, so I can't include it in the article. Because of that, you need one of two things: either a reference that says PURE will not develop or supply its engine, or a reference that says Lotus will use an engine other than PURE. Those are the only two things that will justify it's removal. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You editwar PURE might be Lotus engine 2014. Even company website is from 2012. You have any proof for editwarred claim they ever restarted development? FootballCleaner (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof it is "impossible" for them to have an engine ready in time for the start of the 2014 season? No one anywhere is stating that they have restarted development, but you are removing information based on pure speculation. A company in hiatus is not inherently dead. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have brain - enough to proof impossibility: Company lost 15 months development and all people. You cannot start hire people, develop engine, integrate engine into car, 3 months before first 2014 tests.
• Newest source says company dead. You have WP:SOURCE talling Lotus might PURE 2014 or you editwar for your WP:OR?

FootballCleaner (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FootballCleaner, "using your brain" like that is not Wikipedia policy, not matter how much sense your premise is (please note I still would include something in the article). That source doesn't say that the company is dead, just suspended, and until you find a source that actually says the company will not supply any engines and will not restart work, then you cannot say on Wikipedia that they will not supply engines or resume from hiatus. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, and not either the truth or what could be generally understand to be the actual situation. So until you find a verifiable source that states that there won't be any activity, it must stay. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Editwarrior justified editwar claiming PURE might supply Lotus 2014. [6][7] I gave WP:SOURCE says PURE dead, why you not ask him what is verifiable his claim? FootballCleaner (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

His claim is based that since Lotus hasn't confirmed their engine suppliers, so it is conceivable that they could take on the PURE engines. Once Lotus announce their engine supplier, this section of text can be removed or condensed into something like "former BAR team principal Craig Pollock set up PURE with intentions to supply engines in 2014, but having suspended operations in July 2012, they failed to pick up any clients for 2014." This will be sourced by whatever source reports Lotus' engine deal, as long as it states that every team has an engine supplier. And unless this source says that PURE are dead, in which it would be added into to text (if the paragraph stays in the article), we cannot state they are dead without a source directly stating so. I mean, what happens if you have your way and in, let's say, January, Pollock announces he intends to restart the PURE venture to with intentions to enter in 2016? Also read the source you provided. In no way does it say they are dead, just that in July 2012, they suspended operations, with intentions to restart operations in the future. Just because no new information has emerged since then doesn't mean they are dead. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

PURE creating 2016 engine in theory possible. Prisonermonkeys editwarring based on his personal theory Lotus could use PURE 2014 - not possible. Source says PURE suspended 2012 - no source for editwarrior theory PURE engine ready for Lotus 2014. FootballCleaner (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in the article, so there doesn't need to be a source at the current time. The point that he is making (which I attempted to explain above) is that we cannot remove the paragraph about PURE until Lotus confirm their engine supplier. Remember, anything can happen in Formula One, and it usually does – so until it is confirmed that Lotus won't use PURE engines, we cannot remove the section. Also remember that logic doesn't necessary apply on Wikipedia; while there is a 0.000001% chance that (a) PURE will restart in time for 2014 and (b) Lotus choose PURE engines, again we simply cannot remove the paragraph until there is a reliable source stating that Lotus (or anyone else for that matter) will not use them, which should come in time. —Gyaro–Maguus— 14:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Engine devel needs people and years, and no people and 3 months left makes no 0.000001% chance PURE will restart in time for 2014. Company website no update since 2012 and no source for restart activities by editwarrior. If I make website claiming to build 2015 engine and suspend operations soon later, you also insist information stays in article until last team choose 2015 engine? FootballCleaner (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In that situation, Yes, assuming you gain enough notability and media coverage to be mentioned in the first place. Until it is confirmed that you have no available clients for your engines, confirmed by a reliable, reputable media source (or on your website) to have definitively shut down operations, or confirmed that you actually are not going to produce any engines, a paragraph about your company would survive. And as for company websites, HRT shut down and down went their website, so the fact that the PURE website survives could imply an intention to resume operations. —Gyaro–Maguus— 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything you're stating is WP:OR, Football. The age of the website, your brain, all of it is not proof, it is you using a mixture of facts to attempt to explain your opinion. In the end, it is still an opinion. The only facts, which Wikipedia clearly states, is the PURE inteded to have an engine for 2014, and that Lotus does not have an engine contract yet. This article in no place states that PURE could be the engine manufacturer, but we cannot simply erase the two sourced facts just because you deem it unlikely that Lotus could use PURE engines. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And with the Sirotkin argument, I can understand the reasoning that because eighteen year-olds are legally recognised as adults, Sirotkin should not be referred to as a teenager. He is, however, still in his teenage years, and will be when he enters Formula 1. Therefore, he is a teenager. Not really sure why this was such a big issue ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why issue big enough for you to revert? FootballCleaner (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it big enough to revert back? We're not going to keep your edits just because you wish them. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if PURE fails to secure a client for the 2014 Formula One season I can't see why it's mention would have to be removed. It's notable enough to stay. Likewise the 2008, 2010 and 2011 season pages still mention the teams that submitted an entry bid, but failed to secure one or those who did receive one but failed to actually take part in the season. Tvx1 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a valid comparison, PURE isn't enterring the championship, just building race engines which could have a number of potential clients other than Formula One. --Falcadore (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)